We are fortunate in having a fine grammar
cum lexicon of the corpus of EH (JEH
and IEH)
inscriptions as well as a number of scholarly collections of the material and a
reconstructed vocalization[2]. JEH documents have been preserved in
their original language and orthography and, within limits, can serve as a guide to the original
orthography of CBH.

On the negative
side, the fact that scholars of the highest caliber such as (in alphabetical
order) Anderson, Blau, Barr, Muraoka, Pardee, Rainey, Richter and Sarfatti are in contention about aspects of the vocalization
of Epigraphic Hebrew makes it clear that the information required to make
definitive decisions about areas of dispute is simply not there. On the one
hand, recreating the phonetics of dead languages is impossible beyond a certain
point. This is compounded by and the lack of almost any internal vowel letters
in EH (see Matres Lectionis in Hebrewand Matres Lectionis in the Biblical Text). On the other hand, the
extreme paucity of epigraphic materials found to date means that we are working
with a miniscule basis of written evidence. This contrasts with, for example,
Latin and Akkadian scholars who have mountains of vocalized epigraphic remains.

Two issues in the vocalization of JEH, and hence of EBHP, have occupied me:

4. The system of internal vowel letters was more
restricted since only waw and yodwere
pressed into service for such vowels:

(a) waw represented û.

(b) yodrepresented î.

Naturally they could also represent consonants and
diphthongs: the latter have to be regarded as consonants until and unless
contracted, when they became long vowels.

All remaining vowels were not indicated at this
stage of development: ā was left unrepresented because it was not
considered feasible to use he internally, so
in effect ā was relegated to the zero-classification like the short
vowels. As for ō and ē, their time
would come, but so far we have no decisive evidence for their representation
in this period. What is needed is the occurrence of non-etymological vowel
letters that were not part of the consonantal structure of the word and whose
vocalization is equally certain....

For Hebrew orthography...
the official system called for the representation of all final vowels by
appropriate vowel letters (h, w, y). All known Hebrew inscriptions from the
9th to the 6th centuries follow this pattern.... The dubious or questionable
cases are the result of the misapplication of Masoretic vocalizations to the
inscriptional material....

When it comes to internal
vowel letters it is clear that they were used, but before the Exile the
practice was sporadic at best. Such vowel letters are attested as early as
the 8th century and their use may go back further. Unequivocal examples are
found in proper nouns and in distinctive verbal (and nominal) forms where the
function and probably the purpose are unmistakable. For example:

oʾrwr
= ʾarūr, cursed, in the Shebna inscription (8th cent.)

ohbqyd =
hibqῑd, he appointed, from Arad (7th-6th cent.)

But systematic use is
unattested in any Hebrew inscriptions or those of closely related dialects.

We should note the
JEH: second person masculine singular
suffix on singular noun <k>[4]; SC second
person masculine singular suffix <t>[5] and,
perhaps the second person ms. independent pronoun <ʾ[t]>[6]. See
the discussion on anceps
vowels. We can start with the reasonable assumption that JEP and PreExH are two
closely related registers of Hebrew written in the same scribal community at
the same period. This together with the evidence of BHQum[7] and TH renders it most probably that
these three forms, inJEH end in unwritten
vowels i.e. <k> = */ka(ː)/; <t> = */ta(ː)/; *<ʾt> = */ʾàta(ː)/.